Mohinder Singh Guleria vs H.P. State Electricity Board

Justice Sanjay Karol, J.—Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

I. That the respondent may kindly be directed to step up the pay of the applicant at par with his junior Sh. Rasila Ram, Sh. Neeru Ram & Balak Ram Superintendent G-II w.e.f. 09-1-90 with its consequential benefits.

II. That the rejection order dated 2nd Sept, 05 (Annexure A-1) may kindly be quashed and set aside.

III. That the respondent may also kindly be directed to release the arrear of stepped up pay with interest and revise pension by bringing basic pay at par with his juniors after stepping up of his pay.

IV. That the entire record of the case including that of juniors may kindly be summoned for perusal and verification of the Hon''ble Tribunal.

V. Any other order/direction which the Hon''ble Tribunal deem just and proper in the interest of justice and fair play may kindly be passed/issued in favour of applicant and the Respondent Board may kindly be burdened with cost of this application.

In terms of order dated 2.9.2005 (Annexure A-1) petitioner''s claim of stepping up of his pay, equal to that of his juniors, stands rejected for the reason that it is grossly time barred. This is also evident from the following averments made by the respondent in its affidavit dated 14.7.2011:-

That it is the respectful submission of the replying respondent herein that the petitioner Shri Mohinder Singh had never applied for stepping up of his pay against Shri Neeru Ram and Balak Ram, Supdt. Gr-II. Now he is seeking stepping up of his pay against aforesaid officials w.e.f. 9.1.1990, which is not maintainable at this belated stage of time. The petitioner has retired from the Board''s service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.1.2005 and all retiral benefits stand already released to him and settled long back. Thus the claim of the petitioner is time barred and cannot be considered at this belated stage of time. Besides, the anomaly had occurred on 1.1.90 against which Sh. Mohinder Singh (petitioner) had applied for stepping up of his pay on 23.12.97 which was time barred. This being so the Civil Writ Petition is not maintainable and deserves dismissal.

The stand taken by the Board, to say the least is perverse and unbecoming of a welfare State. Respondent-Board was duty bound to accord all benefits to its employees, including the petitioner, as per their entitlement in law. It is their right and not a bounty. Board need not wait for petitioner''s request but act of their own. Petitioner''s claim for stepping up of his pay, so as to bring it at par with persons junior to him was justified in law.

Record reveals that Sh. Rasila Ram, being a Scheduled Caste candidate was accorded benefits to which petitioner was not entitled to. But however with regard to benefits accorded to Sh. Balak Ram and Sh. Neeru Ram, persons junior to the petitioner he was entitled to such benefits, which position has not been disputed at the bar.

However, it has come on record that grievance with regard to such persons was made by the petitioner for the first time only in the year 2000 when he filed O.A. No. 267 of 2000 before the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal.

As such, petitioner shall be entitled to monetary benefits w.e.f. the date of filing of O.A. No. 267 of 2000. As such Annexure A-1 is quashed.

Consequential action, including disbursement of monetary benefits as may be found due and admissible, shall positively be taken by respondent No. 1 within a period of three months from date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment, failing which, then thereafter, petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 9% p.a. which shall be personally recovered from the erring official(s). Petition stands allowed to the aforesaid extent.

Petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.